Timothy Baptist Church — Musgokee, OK

A 17-year-old boy, after pleading guilty in a DUI manslaughter case, has received the following sentence: 

• finish high school
• complete his welding training
• stay alcohol, tobacco, and drug-free for one year
• attend church regularly for the next ten years

Something seems fishy. Wait, sentenced to church by a district court? Yeah, that would be it.

Tyler Alred was driving his Chevy pickup while slightly intoxicated in the wee hours of the morning on December 4, 2011, when he crashed into a tree. Although Tyler was fine, his passenger and good friend was not — 16-year-old John Dum was pronounced dead at the scene.

Almost one year later, Tyler appeared in the Muskogee County District Court and was offered the option of a 10-year prison sentence or a 10-year “church sentence” by Judge Mike Norman. Naturally, he chose the latter — he and his family already attend church regularly, and this would give him a “fresh start” instead of a prison record. Both families were fine with the sentence.

Now, lets take a moment and think about how constitutionally inappropriate this is.

Disregarding both the Free Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, this is not the first time that Judge Norman has sentenced people to church. Even more concerning, Norman has acknowledged that his ruling is unconstitutional, but he believes it will “hold up.” In regards to the matter, Norman said:

I feel like church is important. I sentenced him to go to church for 10 years because I thought I could do that… I think Jesus can help anybody. I know I need help from him every day.

Norman also mentioned that Tyler can choose to attend any church of any denomination. If the teen does not fulfill his sentence requirements, he will be sentenced to jail.

The ACLU is planning on filing with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints. Ryan Kiesel, the director of the Oklahoma ACLU, is thoroughly disappointed with Norman, stating:

We see a judge who has shown disregard for the First Amendment of the Constitution in his rulings. Alternative sentencing is something that should be encouraged, but there are many options that don’t violate the Constitution. A choice of going to prison or to church — that is precisely the type of coercion that the First Amendment seeks to prevent.

However, the sentence cannot be challenged in court unless Tyler fights it. Since this is unlikely to occur, the ACLU must put their faith in their judicial review council.

We must remember that this isn’t a matter of overzealous Bible Belt Christians forcing themselves into matters of the state, because even a minister is against the ruling. Rev. Bruce Prescott, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is worried about the sentence’s “spiritual ramifications,” saying:

I want people to go to church, but it’s not helpful for a judge to sentence someone to church … Religion is not a tool of the state, and it’s certainly not for the state to use as a tool of rehabilitation.

So, my friends, what do you think? Is the church sentence’s unconstitutionality overshadowing the judge’s good intentions?